Links to Fleetingly Amusing Stuff

[Snardbafulator]

Jonny Trunk on twitter:
Overhead from pensioner in local cafe: "I used to have to go to the circus to see the fat tattooed lady. Now I just walk out me front door."

He should come visit sunny, historic South Philadelphia. Our pensioners (well, we really don't have pensions in America anymore save for the remaining 8% or so in public-sector unions) live cheek-to-jowl with the obese tatted-up crowd. And funnily enough, they all seem to get along.

Howdy neighbor!

Fascinating discussion, Bubby and Sir M. The electoral aspects are all different of course, but the Farage / UKIP phenomenon is looking more and more analogous to the dynamics of the Tea Party, which could never remotely govern give its ideology yet is in the most uneasy, co-dependent and ultimately self-destructive alliance with the Republican establishment.

I don't know if the Ron Paul analogy is 100% apt, but it is interesting. Farage is more like a classic Tea Party rabble rouser with statesmanlike pretensions like Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin. Paul ran inside the GOP, too much of a pro-life Texas Christian to be a social Libertarian, and his Libertarian leanings aren't what's really threatening to the underlying neoliberal meta-ideology which serves the "1%" (in Occupy's parlance, the governing class in yours). What's really threatening, like with Farage, is his reactionary populism. It's entirely possible to make a reasoned, dispassionate Libertarian argument for minimalist government which doesn't challenge the underlying financial assumptions. Paul got into conspiracy theories about the inherent evil of floating currency and the FRB which caused the LP to basically disown him.

Likewise, the UKIP's anti-EU pseudo-autarkism is reactionary populism and directly contrary to neoliberal orthodoxy, which supports unitary bureaucracies to underwrite globalization. The point of the spear (as with the Tea Party over here) is immigration policy, and the one place where neoliberal orthodoxy coincides perfectly with sane, humane social policy is on rationalized, open immigration. It might be for the most disgustingly exploitative of real reasons (all those economically insecure arrivistes need cheap nannies), but you can slap a Christian, pro-family gloss on it. Which is what Dubya, to his (only) credit, tried to do.

But immigration is the great lightening rod, the #1 issue for most Tea Partiers as it may well be for the UKIP unwashed masses, the one article of faith that keeps them voting for scumbags who would outsource their jobs, confiscate their unemployment and turn their Social Security and Medicare into a financialized casino that amounts to a benefits program for brokerage houses. Yet it's an issue that cannot ever be fixed, despite support for it in the GOP Senate, because if you fix it, you take it away as a lightening rod to demagogue up votes with.

I'm guessing that this is going to work its dark magic for the UKIP. As long as they can keep howling about immigration and trigger those xenophobic reflexes, they can churn up votes, so they are praying it will never be tampered with, even in the ways they claim to support.

Bob

[Bubby]

I think even if Farage was to come out as a peadophile cannibal monkey in a man suit people would still vote for him. As i said earlier, many of his 'fans' are up in arms at his terribly unfair treatment at the hands of James O'brien. The big bully.

SET UP! Like we have seen so many times. VOTE UKIP!

Disgraceful interview. O'Brien had his computer screen pre loaded with the most awkward questions his researchers could find and was well rehearsed.

Makes me certain to vote UKIP - the establishment are really worried

, UKIP will continue to rise in the polls after your bullying tactics. Idiots like O`Brien just don`t get it

What a joke. Does this tool Obrien want to discuss anything of any substance? Completely unwatchable it was. The media can throw all the dirt they want at Farage and UKIP, its not sticking any more. People are seeing a real alternative for once to decades of mediocre sock puppets.

andonandonandon...

Also as Bob pointed out, he looks like an amphibian. Everything else aside, his face would put me off voting for him.

[Mr. Minnow]

But immigration is the great lightening rod, the #1 issue for most Tea Partiers as it may well be for the UKIP unwashed masses, the one article of faith that keeps them voting for scumbags who would outsource their jobs, confiscate their unemployment and turn their Social Security and Medicare into a financialized casino that amounts to a benefits program for brokerage houses.

It's always amazed me how the GOP has managed to make millions of poor Americans vote against things which are manifestly in their own interest, and in favour of people who are happy and willing to screw them over. The health care issue is the most obvious example. The idea of everyone having access to a decent level of health care is so obviously in the interests of those at the bottom of the pile that it should be a no-brainer. And yet, when you see anti-Obamacare rallies with ordinary people waving placards saying "Thank you Fox News", it's a sobering reminder of just how deeply entrenched the propaganda is. All you have to do is say "socialism" and an instant Pavlovian reaction is pretty much guaranteed. I fear that much the same thing is now happening here with the Tories.

With the help of the right-wing rags they've managed to convince a significant proportion of the public that the unemployed are living a life of luxury on a pittance, there are hordes of eastern European immigrants at the castle gate ready to smash the door down, and the sick and disabled are lucky, malingering bastards who are laughing at the taxpayers' expense. There's a mountain of evidence to prove that this is complete bollocks, but it's seldom reported, certainly in comparison to the propaganda that convinces people that this nonsense is true, which is pumped out on a daily basis. So people will vote for a party which wants to strip away the very social safety net that at least some of those same people will need at some point, only to find they've got what they voted for and it isn't there.

Not sure if I've posted this before, but if I have it doesn't matter, it's worth posting again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

[Mr. Minnow]

Disgraceful interview. O'Brien had his computer screen pre loaded with the most awkward questions his researchers could find and was well rehearsed.

So he'd done his homework beforehand? What, like an interviewer whose job is to ask politicians tough questions is supposed to, you mean?

Christ.

[Bubby]

That one's my favourite too

Reminds me of Stew's cab driver anecdote (or at least the punchline of it).

With the help of the right-wing rags they've managed to convince a significant proportion of the public that the unemployed are living a life of luxury on a pittance, there are hordes of eastern European immigrants at the castle gate ready to smash the door down, and the sick and disabled are lucky, malingering bastards who are laughing at the taxpayers' expense. There's a mountain of evidence to prove that this is complete bollocks, but it's seldom reported, certainly in comparison to the propaganda that convinces people that this nonsense is true, which is pumped out on a daily basis. So people will vote for a party which wants to strip away the very social safety net that at least some of those same people will need at some point, only to find they've got what they voted for and it isn't there.

I'm repeating what i've already posted, but this is what irritates and upsets me the most out of all this, People are so eager to buy into fear and lies and all it does is sets the proles against each other. "Life is shit and it's the fault of those bloody foreigners and those scrounging shirkers who don't want to work rah! gnash! grrr!, so lets vote to remove a vital safety net we should all have (and indeed what we pay NI for) gah! fume etc"

Of course unemployment continues to come down, clearly nothing to do with unfair sanctions of vulnerable peoples benefit money and those that get shoved onto workfare (who are also classed as 'employed'), and the huge rise of zero hour contracts which are the modern day equivalent of casual labourers milling around the dock gates early in the morning, hoping to be chosen to do a shift that day. The pay is shite because there's a big pool of desperate people to choose from. It's only one step up from the workhouse.

The more i read the more i'm convinced that those in power aren't even capitalists, they're just aristocrats whose conception of a correctly ordered society is that there are a few rich fuckers who control the wealth and power, and a bunch of peasants scrabbling for coins scattered into the dirt from ornate balconies.


more misery, sorry

[Mr. Minnow]

That one's my favourite too

Reminds me of Stew's cab driver anecdote (or at least the punchline of it).

That's funny, but not surprising. The intrusion of actual facts into the argument does tend to confuse those who have been taken in by the propaganda.

I'm repeating what i've already posted, but this is what irritates and upsets me the most out of all this, People are so eager to buy into fear and lies and all it does is sets the proles against each other. "Life is shit and it's the fault of those bloody foreigners and those scrounging shirkers who don't want to work rah! gnash! grrr!, so lets vote to remove a vital safety net we should all have (and indeed what we pay NI for) gah! fume etc"

Of course unemployment continues to come down, clearly nothing to do with unfair sanctions of vulnerable peoples benefit money and those that get shoved onto workfare (who are also classed as 'employed'), and the huge rise of zero hour contracts which are the modern day equivalent of casual labourers milling around the dock gates early in the morning, hoping to be chosen to do a shift that day. The pay is shite because there's a big pool of desperate people to choose from. It's only one step up from the workhouse.

The more i read the more i'm convinced that those in power aren't even capitalists, they're just aristocrats whose conception of a correctly ordered society is that there are a few rich fuckers who control the wealth and power, and a bunch of peasants scrabbling for coins scattered into the dirt from ornate balconies.

They're not even aristocrats; at least some aristocrats had a sense of noblesse oblige. Not these thundercunts. They're just psychopaths, and I mean literally psychopaths. They have absolutely no shred of empathy or compassion for anyone less fortunate than themselves. They know that dozens of people die every week within six weeks or less of being declared supposedly "fit for work". They've been told this time and time again and even their own figures tell them so. Do they reform the system so this doesn't happen? No. They carry on with it, because every person driven into an early grave is one less person on benefit, and in their warped minds that's a success. What they do decide to do is stop collecting figures on death rates, so even a FoI request will be useless. Because we don't want the public having to read distasteful stories about what the government is doing in their name. That would never do. It surely won't be long before a Tory minister is heard describing the sick and disabled as useless eaters, because the government's actions give every indication that that is indeed their view. The spirit of Christian Wirth is alive and well.

As for the workhouse, if things continue on their current trajectory I honestly wouldn't be that surprised to see it come back. They won't actually be called workhouses of course, they'll be given a corporate rebranding and called something like Intensive Labour Facilities. They'll probably be run by A4E or Serco too.

more misery, sorry

I knew about most of those, but that doesn't make it any less depressing. Especially disturbing is something mentioned in the comments section that I've seen mentioned elsewhere, namely IDS' idea of sending sick and disabled people to residential camps, miles away from friends, family and support networks, to "motivate" them to find work. If true, it's incredible. The only thing that's likely to stop that happening is that it would be virtually impossible to implement because it would be so hugely impractical. But then this is IDS. Every time he's proved wrong about anything (quite a frequent occurrence, unsurprisingly), he simply dismisses anything that undermines his position with a casual wave of the hand. He always reminds me of an old Tom Baker Doctor Who story, in which the Doctor says something like: "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering". That's IDS in a nutshell.

The only flicker of hope is the almighty row between the government and Atos which has led to the latter pulling out of its Work Capability Assessment contract early. True, the government are trying to fob people off by claiming that if they get rid of Atos then everything will be fine, so that they can keep the WCA as it is (it won't be fine of course, since Atos - for all the richly deserved opprobrium they've received for their role in adminstering state-sponsored brutality for profit - are ultimately just the hired thugs of choice; whoever replaces them will be implementing exactly the same test, with the same results). But if anyone had said a year ago that in twelve months time Atos would be exiting its contract early following a huge row with the government, no-one would have thought it possible, given that the two had been working hand-in-glove until recently. The reason things have got to this stage is because of the heroic campaigning by disability charities and other organisations. Despite the odds, they've finally started to make themselves heard over the incessant shriek of the right wing tabloids; the name Atos is now much more well known to the public than it was. The next stage is to keep the pressure up so that sooner or later the government has to agree to radically reform the WCA.

Next year I might have to hold my nose and vote Labour, since they're the only party with a chance of beating the Tories in my constituency. God knows I don't want to, especially as the WCA was brought in by "New Labour", but as they've committed to serious reform of the WCA it's the only viable option (I certainly can't bring myself to vote Lib Dem again, not after five years of collaboration with this shameful agenda). They might go back on their word if they get in of course, but one thing we know for sure is that if the Tories get back in, we'll have five more years of IDS. And that should put the fear of god into anyone with a functioning conscience.

[Snardbafulator]

Also as Bob pointed out, he looks like an amphibian. Everything else aside, his face would put me off voting for him.

He really does look like The Creature From the Black Lagoon in a Savile Row suit

I'm sure you guys remember when Sarah Palin hit he national stage after McCain chose her for VP. And you might remember her first sit-down interview with Katie "the most powerful Katie in the world" Couric. It was a softball interview. Couric's not noted for being a hard-hitting political journalist, more like a steroidally perky anchorperson. Even so, Serious Questions had to be asked. She'd be A Heartbeat Away. So she was asked about her foreign policy creds. And she said -- to howls of mirthful derision around the world -- that being governor of Alaska was a pretty important qualification because, well for one, "you can see Russia from Alaska."

This was the very last thing from gotcha journalism, but the fulminating attacks on Couric and the networks by Tea Partiers were pretty much identical to the bilge on that comment thread. Couric set her up, lulled her into complacency, sucker-puncher her blah blah blah. The lamestream media were all in a conspiracy to quash anything smelling of anti-elitism, etc.

It's always amazed me how the GOP has managed to make millions of poor Americans vote against things which are manifestly in their own interest, and in favour of people who are happy and willing to screw them over. The health care issue is the most obvious example. The idea of everyone having access to a decent level of health care is so obviously in the interests of those at the bottom of the pile that it should be a no-brainer. And yet, when you see anti-Obamacare rallies with ordinary people waving placards saying "Thank you Fox News", it's a sobering reminder of just how deeply entrenched the propaganda is. All you have to do is say "socialism" and an instant Pavlovian reaction is pretty much guaranteed. I fear that much the same thing is now happening here with the Tories.

Sign at a Tea Party rally: Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare!

Medicare of course being the US's answer to the NHS for those over 65 ...

Not sure if I've posted this before, but if I have it doesn't matter, it's worth posting again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Hee, I watched that about ten times. His expressions were priceless

"I'm a ... just going to wash my hands, I think."

"I would if I were you."

Reminds me of Stew's cab driver anecdote (or at least the punchline of it).

"Well you can prove anything with facts, can'tcha."

It's like Ronald Reagan's famous Freudian misquote: "Facts are stupid things."

I've read all the misery links and wiki'ed stuff I didn't know specifically about the British social benefits system and it's all just guttingly grim. I really don't have much to add as an outside observer who doesn't regularly follow the news over there (or any news; I'm still in my official news embargo until the start of the '16 presidential cycle next year, although I'll be voting in a primary this Tuesday for the best choice to hopefully oust our wretched anti-city Republican state governor), save to admire the eloquent passion of both of you in staring down this horrible state of affairs. At the end of the day I'm like Minnow, in that no matter how radically I may talk, I always do wind up voting for and often working for the main-line Democrat. When the election starts to heat up, that's when I peel off from my anarchist and third-party comrades, much as I may agree with their meta-analysis of the underlying problem. Someday maybe we'll have IRV (Instant Runoff Voting -- our version of AV) and I'll get to vote Green.

I take people's real situations too seriously to ever let politics remain an intellectual exercise.

Bob

[montoid]

I take people's real situations too seriously to ever let politics remain an intellectual exercise.

'avin that, cheers

[Made Of Worms]

I may be a bit on the naively optimistic side (I am) but it seems to me Nigey Garridge is definitely not a conspiratorial plant, and I imagine more than half the people who have UKIP signs up are merely registering disgruntlement in what seems to them to be the most effective way available. I don't think anyone actually wants frogface and his ilk anywhere near any steering wheel. His back seat driving's bad enough.


Right, what about Scotland? That's not fleeting or amusing either. Again I'm optimistic. I think four more months of obvious disinformation from both sides will most likely lead to a confused throwing up of hands and a vote for the status quo. Obviously if it was me I'd wade in and call both sides cunts, knowing for certain that would help consolidate the union.

[Mr. Minnow]

Right, what about Scotland? That's not fleeting or amusing either. Again I'm optimistic. I think four more months of obvious disinformation from both sides will most likely lead to a confused throwing up of hands and a vote for the status quo. Obviously if it was me I'd wade in and call both sides cunts, knowing for certain that would help consolidate the union.

From a purely selfish point of view it would be better if the Scots vote to remain in the UK, since without them we could well have permament Tory rule. Any Labour government that could win in that scenario would be very much of the "New Labour" variety, i.e. Tory in all but name.

However, if the Scots did vote for independence I really couldn't blame them. It's a much more left-leaning, progressive country than England, and there is certainly very little support in Scotland for the Tories' social Darwinism, but thanks to the union they have this repulsive crap foisted on them time and time again because of how England votes. I suspect that the pro-independence campaign will fall just short and they'll vote to stay in by a narrow margin, but if anything could swing it the other way, it's the stomach-churning spectacle of Osborne and co smirking as they hammer the poor and sick. Since Wales is politically much more similar to Scotland than it is to England, I could see support for Welsh independence gathering momentum if the Scots were to leave. Again, that would make things even worse for those of us in England, but the Tories are only marginally more popular in Wales than they are in Scotland. Who can forget John Redwood's stirring rendition of the Welsh national anthem when he was secretary of state for Wales? It always brings a tear to the eye. Hankies at the ready, because here it is in all its glory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc

[dogsetc.]

Obviously if it was me I'd wade in and call both sides cunts, knowing for certain that would help consolidate the union.

About nothing sarcasm subtle your, or NSAYS, as i like to say on the internets.



I dunno.

[Bubby]

I'm sure you guys remember when Sarah Palin hit he national stage after McCain chose her for VP. And you might remember her first sit-down interview with Katie "the most powerful Katie in the world" Couric. It was a softball interview. Couric's not noted for being a hard-hitting political journalist, more like a steroidally perky anchorperson. Even so, Serious Questions had to be asked. She'd be A Heartbeat Away. So she was asked about her foreign policy creds. And she said -- to howls of mirthful derision around the world -- that being governor of Alaska was a pretty important qualification because, well for one, "you can see Russia from Alaska."

This was the very last thing from gotcha journalism, but the fulminating attacks on Couric and the networks by Tea Partiers were pretty much identical to the bilge on that comment thread. Couric set her up, lulled her into complacency, sucker-puncher her blah blah blah. The lamestream media were all in a conspiracy to quash anything smelling of anti-elitism, etc.

I suppose this is the problem with those that identify themselves as either hard-left or hard-right, Democrat or Republican, Conservative or liberal etc, the facts get caught somewhere in the middle and their brain grows around all logic, reason and evidence and interprets it however they feel most comfortable with. I've had frustrating conversations with people who even if you speak to them perfectly reasonably and sanely presenting facts and so forth will all too easily dismiss whatever you're bringing to the table as "wooly headed liberalism". So many want to be down with their party rather than have to be a decent human being and think anything through

I think it was Stephen Colbert who put it best when he said "reality has a well known liberal bias" (speaking of Colbert, his appearance at the white house correspondents dinner is fvcking beautiful and ballsy as hell ).

I've read all the misery links and wiki'ed stuff I didn't know specifically about the British social benefits system and it's all just guttingly grim. I really don't have much to add as an outside observer who doesn't regularly follow the news over there (or any news; I'm still in my official news embargo until the start of the '16 presidential cycle next year, although I'll be voting in a primary this Tuesday for the best choice to hopefully oust our wretched anti-city Republican state governor), save to admire the eloquent passion of both of you in staring down this horrible state of affairs. At the end of the day I'm like Minnow, in that no matter how radically I may talk, I always do wind up voting for and often working for the main-line Democrat. When the election starts to heat up, that's when I peel off from my anarchist and third-party comrades, much as I may agree with their meta-analysis of the underlying problem. Someday maybe we'll have IRV (Instant Runoff Voting -- our version of AV) and I'll get to vote Green.

I take people's real situations too seriously to ever let politics remain an intellectual exercise.

Next year I might have to hold my nose and vote Labour, since they're the only party with a chance of beating the Tories in my constituency. God knows I don't want to, especially as the WCA was brought in by "New Labour", but as they've committed to serious reform of the WCA it's the only viable option (I certainly can't bring myself to vote Lib Dem again, not after five years of collaboration with this shameful agenda). They might go back on their word if they get in of course, but one thing we know for sure is that if the Tories get back in, we'll have five more years of IDS. And that should put the fear of god into anyone with a functioning conscience.

I get what you're both saying, but for me it seems very disingenuous to vote for something you don't really want. I can't believe Labour would really be much difference other than maybe fvcking us a little bit slower and hiding the shameful truth a bit better, then again almost anything is better than another 5 years of the tories. Never has what George Carlin referred to as the illusion of choice been more apparent. It's Corporate twats 1 or Corporate twats 2 Also, depressingly Labour not getting in next year would only encourage them to move further to the right in persuit of the tories. A "race to the bottom" indeed

The Lib Dems are finished imo. Even if they haven't betrayed you to the point you can't vote for them again, a vote for the Lib Dems remains a pointless, wasted vote because they only got close last time due to a momentary hope for difference that has long since evaporated.

If all the people who didn't bother voting actually cast a spoiled vote in protest, then that number would become far less insignificant and less easy to ignore. What bothers me immensely these days is anyone saying "I don't vote as a political protest" (like Russell bloody Brand ) as if that achieves anything positive whatsoever. If anything, people are supporting the murderous fascists even more by not showing up, since it means the counted votes are from people who are actively supporting the system as it is.

[Made Of Worms]

However, if the Scots did vote for independence I really couldn't blame them. [+ reasons]

Damn straight. (And it's "Scotch", everyone knows that.) I really don't think it'd be a vote to be potentially the world's 14th richest country though, as I believe Salmond suggests. He's a problem for the Yes vote isn't he? I know it shouldn't come down to personalities but he's a bit Galloway, a bit Farage, isn't he?

Surely we'd have to redraw lots of constituency boundaries? Why indeed *are* the Tories making such Better Together noises? Are they bluffing? Are they deliberately fudging their noises? Are they double bluffing? Do they actually have a principle? As I say, tune in for the next four months to not find out.

Winter's coming.

[Mr. Minnow]

I get what you're both saying, but for me it seems very disingenuous to vote for something you don't really want. I can't believe Labour would really be much difference other than maybe fvcking us a little bit slower and hiding the shameful truth a bit better,

It's just a question of probabilities really. If Labour get in, will they screw us over and break their promise to radically reform the WCA? Quite possibly. But there's also a chance they won't, not least because there does seem to be a fair bit of opposition to what the DWP and Atos are doing on the Labour backbenches.

But what if the Tories get back in? If that happens, there is a virtually 100% chance that the persecution of the sick and poor will be intensified even further.

then again almost anything is better than another 5 years of the tories.

Exactly. It's of paramount importance that these bastards are kicked out next year, and if that means I have to hold my nose while voting Labour, well so be it. If they can get away with what they've done so far, where will it go next? Well, the Human Rights Act will be toast, you can be sure of that. It's no coincidence that the HRA has come under sustained attack from the right wing press. It's one of the few obstacles standing in the way of the Tories doing what the hell they like.

Never has what George Carlin referred to as the illusion of choice been more apparent. It's Corporate twats 1 or Corporate twats 2

Indeed, we're in a situation in which we can only vote for a slightly less offensive smelling pile of crap, but there are some decent MPs in Labour who still have a conscience, and those people are unlikely to let Miliband try to ape the Tories should he decide to try.

Also, depressingly Labour not getting in next year would only encourage them to move further to the right in persuit of the tories.

And that's another reason for getting the Tories out next year.

The Lib Dems are finished imo. Even if they haven't betrayed you to the point you can't vote for them again, a vote for the Lib Dems remains a pointless, wasted vote because they only got close last time due to a momentary hope for difference that has long since evaporated.

You'd hope that most people who voted Lib Dem last time will switch to more left-leaning parties, which would certainly help (especially people like us, who voted for them last time but are sickened by what they've gone along with in government). If the Lib Dems are finished as a party they've brought it on themselves.

If all the people who didn't bother voting actually cast a spoiled vote in protest, then that number would become far less insignificant and less easy to ignore. What bothers me immensely these days is anyone saying "I don't vote as a political protest" (like Russell bloody Brand ) as if that achieves anything positive whatsoever. If anything, people are supporting the murderous fascists even more by not showing up, since it means the counted votes are from people who are actively supporting the system as it is.

That's the problem - whether we vote or not, we're "supporting" the system. Damned if we do, damned if we don't!

[Mr. Minnow]

Damn straight. (And it's "Scotch", everyone knows that.) I really don't think it'd be a vote to be potentially the world's 14th richest country though, as I believe Salmond suggests. He's a problem for the Yes vote isn't he? I know it shouldn't come down to personalities but he's a bit Galloway, a bit Farage, isn't he?

No, I don't think he is. He's an immensely capable and savvy political operator, whatever you think of his policies. Even his opponents acknowledge that. It's largely because of him that the SNP are in power in Scotland, and they've actually done a pretty good job in government. Can you imagine Farage doing the same? No, neither can I!

He also pricked Farage's balloon when the latter went to Scotland and discovered the hard way that his message doesn't go down nearly as well there as it does in England, which highlighted the fact that UKIP are largely English nationalists with little support in Scotland (and not much more in Wales). Farage responded with his usual hectoring bluster, but Salmond skewered him, not least because he wasn't frightened of Farage, unlike so many of his English counterparts.

Surely we'd have to redraw lots of constituency boundaries? Why indeed *are* the Tories making such Better Together noises? Are they bluffing? Are they deliberately fudging their noises? Are they double bluffing? Do they actually have a principle? As I say, tune in for the next four months to not find out.

Remember, they're officially the Conservative and Unionist Party. You can't really be a party of the union and advocate something that would break the union up. Are they bluffing for electoral advantage, secretly hoping that their unpopularity in Scotland will harm the "Better Together" campaign? Possibly, but I doubt it. They're zealous British nationalists after all. And besides, they won't be able to rule Scotland if it leaves the union, and having as much power as possible is something they REALLY like, not least because they think they're entitled to it.